Democrats: Please Don Not Nominate Hillary!!

Great Debates
101

There’s an expression for what you’re trying to do here - I think it’s called talking to a brick wall. You’re absolutely right, but they’re not going to listen to you. There is very little point in trying to win over Republicans and get them to vote for the Dem who runs. They aren’t going to, at least not in numbers that will make a lick of difference. Republicans know that humans are resistant to actually listening to the other side and taking their point of view instead; that’s why most of us don’t bother trying to convince anyone to change parties. Why bother? It’s not going to work! So effort is concentrated on getting more people to vote, period. You don’t need to win over any Democrats at all if you get those lazy 40% to get off their butts and put their money where their mouths are.

But I can’t tell you how many well-meaning Democrats have tried to “convince” me that I ought to swap aisles. Or less well meaning ones who imply - or outright declare - that only a moron would vote Republican. Yeah, I’m totally won over by people who tell me I’m dumb - what, am I supposed to vote for a Democrat to prove I’m not stupid? Like we’re six?

Anyway, the fact that there are “queer-hatin’ rednecks and wealthy bastards who are prejudiced against women and blacks” shouldn’t realistically be a problem for the Democrats. Those folks aren’t ever going to be won over anyway because they’re all Republicans, right? I mean, that’s what the Democrats keep telling us, so there must not be any people in their party who fulfill any of those stereotypes. No problems with Clinton or Obama getting the Democratic nomination, especially, given Republicans won’t be voting in that election at all.

If you can’t get either of them that far, I think the party might want to worry about the beam in their own eye before blaming all the prejudice in this country on us. Or create a conspiracy theory about Republicans in vast numbers temporarily changing their party affiliation just for the primaries to screw the Dems

102

I want the Democrats to play smart. Let me ask you this: in all your time here, spewing venom at Christians, Republicans, and whoever else you don’t like, how many have ever responded to you with, “Gee, you know what, you’re right! I really am a diseased pustule on humanity because of what I believe. I’m going to agree with you from now on.”?

Knowledge without character is dangerous. Many of history’s most terrible tyrants have been brilliant men.

Utterly gratuitous, random, and useless.

103

Character without knowledge is useless. Or worse.

104

BG: You might want to send your resume to this company. :slight_smile:

105

Considering the fact that you had to go back to Reconstruction to list all the black Republicans that have been elected to political office, I think you just validated the other side’s point.

106

Unfortunately for every Democrat who says only a moron would vote Republican, there’s a Republican saying only a traitor would vote Democrat. Mindless demonizing is a bipartisan problem.

107

The right, by it’s behavior has created arguments against itself much better than anything I could ever say. I’m not going to convince a right winger of anything, because he or she is either beyond reason or morally corrupt, or they wouldn’t be right wing.

In your opinion. In mine it’s true. Since when has the right done anything worthwhile ? When has it ever not been on the wrong side ? It’s never been the right that’s stood for women’s rights, racial equality, children’s rights, protecting the environment, justice for the poor, the helpless, aid for the sick, animal rights, or anything positive whatsoever that I can think of.

108

Oh, yeah? Well, who else stood up against the tide of dirty fucking hippies burning flags?

109

I’d have to say that humanity’s experience with “My views are not fallible - all who disagree are either stupid or evil” is not especially good.

110

I didn’t say “everyone who disagreed with me”. I said “the right wing”; and since we are taking about the American version, the far right wing.

And again I ask; what have they been on the right side of ? Especially in the last, say, 40 years.

111

Exactly.

Despite wrapping themselves in the American flag and thumping on a Bible (reading only the passages that coincide with their beliefs and ignoring the rest), they have proven to be racist, bigoted, xenophobes who pretend to be the “heartland of America”. If that is the heartland, this country desperately needs a bypass.

Hillary is by no means a Saint - but she has suffered their wrath more than anybody in the entire USA which makes her about the strongest person you could ever hope to be President of the United States.

Living in Nevada, with a very early Caucus this election, we have had every candidate (Democrat and Republican) show up for practically every supermarket opening for months now.

As skeptical as I was about her chances only a few weeks ago, Hillary is turning the corner here. I like Obama, but Hillary has started to prove that she might just actually be the most electable Democrat out there.

I will be at the Democratic Nevada Caucus next year and, as it stands now, she might very well be getting my vote.

112

Forget the backrooms - let’s just concentrate on 1976 to the present.

Sure, first you’ve got to get enough money to run a campaign - but in 2004, Howard Dean proved you could do that without kissing up to a lot of people.

Plus in all the previous years, we had public financing of the primary campaigns.

But we’ve increasingly frontloaded the process. Jimmy Carter didn’t clinch his nomination until June, and even Clinton in 1992 didn’t nail things down until well into April. Voters in one round of primaries would be reacting to what the previous rounds had told them about the candidates.

This time, most of the delegates will be chosen by February 5; both parties’ races may well be over by that date. Which is why this race is so far along now. Polls show a lot more people than usual are thinking about the Presidential contest already, and given how soon it’ll be over, it’s a good thing.

NH will be moving its primary up because SC did so, and Iowa will be moving its caucus earlier once it’s clear which date NH picks. (Each state has laws saying their primary/caucus will be X days before anyone else’s.) Iowa might be forced to hold its caucus before Christmas, and why not? Hell, I’d like to see them move it up to September. The first real vote is always a wake-up call for more politically disengaged citizens to start thinking about their choices, and since most of them are looking at a Feb. 5 deadline, an early wake-up call would be good.

113

Oh, it’s tasteless, I’d have said “re-education” camp.

I notice that carnivoursplant has not offered any other cites, so unless that changes, I’ll consider that charge meaningless.

114

But Bush was not a popular incumbent in 2004. His approval rating had dipped below 50% and stayed there all year. I remember how many of my fellow Democrats were prematurely crowing about how they were going to beat him, just as they are prematurely crowing now about 2008.

The ineptitude of the Democrats at picking electable candidates was never more in evidence than in 2004. A weakened Bush was ripe for the picking, and the Democrats simply blew it. Kerry was an absolute stiff, and I never understood what people were talking about when they called him “electable.” He never looked that way to me. Dean would have been a better choice. Much more loose and down-to-earth. Edwards would have been a better choice.

It’s become popular wisdom among Democrats that Kerry lost because he didn’t respond to attack ads, but he was flailing from day one. He was a long-winded gas bag with an annoying elitist air about him and no charm whatsoever. No amount of advertising could change that.

And now, Democrats seem blinded again. They seem not to realize just how unlikeable Hillary is to the general populace. I fully expect her to get the nomination. I fully expect the Republicans to wind up nominating someone likeable like Mike Huckabee. And then Hillary will be doomed.

The electorate simply does not engage in detailed policy analysis the way we do on these boards. They go with their gut. They go with the candidate they like on a personal level. We on these boards may not like that. We may even convince ourselves that it’s not true. We may convince ourselves that our policy positions are so obviously superior to those of the Republicans that the people just can’t help voting for us.

Well, our policy positions are superior. But that didn’t help us in 2004, and it won’t help in 2008. You have to find a likeable messenger for those policies.

My personal preference would be Gore. He is experienced and he has loosened up and improved his likeability considerably since 2000. Unfortunately he seems determined to stay out of the race.

Obama strikes me as the most likeable of the Democrats. I think he could win if nominated.

Edwards keeps shooting himself in the foot, but I still think he would have a better chance in the general election than Hillary.

Richardson is likeable, but a bit stiff and clumsy in debates. Still prefereable to Hillary.

But I think my preferences are moot. I think my fellow Democrats are bound and determined to nominate Hillary, just as they were bound and determined to nominate Kerry. With the same ultimate result, I fear.

115

You, on the other hand, are weaseling.

OK, then no member of Congress wields power. Unfortunately, then, if you are attempting to imply that this is evidence of racism, then Democrats are racist to the same degree as Republicans. QED.

No true Scotsman wields power, in other words.

And Rice and Powell got to a place where they could wield power as the result of the popular election of Bush.

Are you still attempting to maintain that governors don’t wield power, or have you realized that this is unsustainable and have decided to avoid the topic?

Nope, I am pointing out the contradictions in your rather silly statement.

Regards,
Shodan

116

Okay, I must have missed the news the day that Monica was revealed to be a Republican operative and the dress was a plant.

I’m not saying the Pubs weren’t out to get Bill, but saying the accusations against him were a “vast right-wing conspiracy” was an insult to those of us who cared and aren’t particularly right-wing.

117

All this implies that voters for the Democratic nomination (or at the moment, participants in polls) are fundamentally different than voters in the general election. That they don’t actually vote for the candidate they like the best, but cynically pick who they think the rest of the country will like the best. Or perhaps, more charitably, that their choice is purely intellectual based on examining policy positions and credentials without considering emotional reactions to a candidate’s personality. I reject that premise. I see no evidence that primary voters aren’t voting their gut any less than general election voters.

Being 100% Democrats, they’re more partisan and more liberal than the general population, sure. But the supposed problem with Hillary isn’t that she’s too liberal or too partisan. It’s that she’s “unlikeable”. Well, the Democrats like her. And I don’t think they’re so unlike the general population that Hillary couldn’t win over enough independent voters either.

118

Der Trihs…

I have to say I object to your attitude.

Your position is the weak one. It is the easy road. It is very easy to look at a problem and exclaim “Gee, we need to do something. We should confiscate other people’s money and throw it at this problem. See how much I care? I’m very willing to to take other peoples work and sweat and use it how I think it should be used. If those people I am taking it from object, then they must be morally bankrupt and evil”. Nevermind that it doesn’t seem to work. Nevermind that it doesn’t solve anything and might even make it worse. NO! We have to DO SOMETHING!..with other people’s sweat.

From my position, your position seems wimpy, ineffective and gutless…and I’m not even that conservative.

119

Primary voters are fundamentally different from most voters in the general election. The undeclared, undecided middle is not represented. The primaries are for party loyalists. And Democratic party loyalists do not have a good track record for picking winners, even in years when poll numbers say the Republican should lose.

I’m not sure why this is so, but it frustrates the hell out of me to watch time after time as the Democrats pass over a candidate who could win in favor of a stiff who can’t connect with ordinary people.

120

I’m suprised to see these twostandard-issue right-wing propagandist tricks (“extreme left” and “character”) coming from a self-professed libertarian.

On “character”:

(1) “Character,” like “values,” is one of those wonderful amorphus concepts that is impossible to pin down with a tangible definition, but that everyone will sign on to. Without a reasonably precise definition of “character,” how do you make a rational comparison of the characters of two candidates?

(2) Whatever “character” means, there is absolutely no danger that a political campaign will successfully reveal any candidate’s “true character.” It’s something that a candidate can claim to have and can disparage an opponent for without any fear that such claims can be tested.

(3) The fact that people can claim to consider “character” a deciding factor in an election campaign shows how many people are amenable to the basest forms of propaganda and spin.

(4) Implicit in your post is that Democrats, more than Republicans, have failed to nominate candidates with “character.” I’d be interested in seeing your comparative character evaluations of prominent Democrats and Republicans over the course of the last 15 years or so.

Frankly, I have absolutely no worries that the characters of people like Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Al Gore, or John Kerry are objectively deficient to the characters of people like George H. W. Bush, George W. Bush, Bob Dole, Newt Gingrich, Dick Cheney, or John McCain. Kerry turned out to be a disastrous candidate, but the proposition that he lost (at least in part) because his “character” was deficient to George W. Bush’s is laughable.